The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-10-28
the rights Of the citizen II this. had occurred
with the recently cfifranchized slaves In the

er NJ TwcFer@P hold that tho first ten amend
msnts have donbio aspect; The first Is that
they arc declaration q rights; the second e
be Ss si1 the err reach Of the Federal power
Mr. AtioEney;de'gsyaI HSnt then addressed dressed
tion i 10 bo notion for writ Of error 70 war
said, from the record, frat. that there Is Fed.
question was raised and decided In the state
court: He was, not as well informed ~ he
p wSa s% w " es wn or the
relied In the fret part Of his srglment NE NJ
Fourteenth Amendment. but in the latter part
he changed ground slightly and insisted That t
f Fst sn eSs ana hen hat
all comprised In the provisions Of the Four
,esnh The ops
cont aimed in the first ten amendments to the
Gonsttgtion are limitations on the p1W e ;b o,
States. So far as petitioners rely upon any
thing contained in those amendments they can
have no standing In this court: me fourteenth i
titiionorsS.' The Fourteenth Amendment de-
clares:
sb5ds privilege citizen, Of hs b
Ss0G si @ "s
The record will show that the complaint is
law which deprives the petitioners Of any OF
that section but that they are deprived 81
rights by an erroneous construction Of the law
placed upon \ by the trial court Of the State
OF the State that the Illinois act Of 1874 was re-
pugnant to tho Constitution, treaties, or laws
the court was exercised under it. but that the
act was constitutional and valid. and the
Its ss in y ba Of 81 fhH s
tntes due process Of aw: It IS not material
differently under the law. Due process of law
means the law Of the land.
In the. case of Presser against the State, OF
and Il was c s that the Illinois statute
amendment. This court held that the right
ea5 Of 9 FSs aes @
the Second Amendment from Infringing that
matter matte for State. discretion, and that as q
chose. It was held furthermore that
m nS s Of citizshshp Of the tinted states as
contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
tention Of counsel that tho rights contemplated
were all Included in the Fourteenth Amend
immunities to citizens, of the United States.
Il that was not true in the Presser case, then
the Limitations 81 the Ita Fed
national citizenship by. the Fourteenth Amend
ment for the purposes involved In the petition
Attorney General Hunt then turned his at
tention to the, constitutional provision that
SAL n the
which il was adopted. The last Section q tits
a kA ansI tInd hat
ess ths G prcv!sions Of this arsisis He
wa saep nj to aS c0un h s the
and immunities contemplated by this amend.
ment were only those for whose enforcement
ton. and. Having acted. Congress- has OK
hausted the subject until 1t chooses to take 1t
Turning to the composition of the jury in
the trial court. the Attorney General said that
he did not see how the personnel of the jury
properly be submitted to the court or con-
sidered by 1t in the present proceeding. This
81 The b urg made sw es the IT, s. s0o 81
nois, and not as to how State court may
have construed that law.
challenge Of one Juror asuggestion was made by
one of the counsel for the prisoners that there
H as n The 81 he Hned
an impartial Jury. The person at whose ehaf-
sit n the Jury that tried the case He would
submit that in order to give the parties stand
in aas fssd
actually tried the case. or that by reason Of the
exhaustion OF their peremptory CHALLENGES
i h aamased. This question 'f VAS
v5a ss sa With aaiua regard s Il thai s.
The Chief Justice-Was It not raised in SAN
ford's case? think it is shown in the mono:
randum which we have here that 1t was raised
Mr.. Grinneii asked to have the transcript of
as raised Sn In
the case of Hanna. who did not finally sit on
The Chief Justice directed that all the parts
OF the record relating to tho question thus
raised should be printed and submitted to the
Attorney General Hunt. resuming. said that
the jury law OF the State Of Illinois was not at
tackled by counsel on the other side in the
(reading from the proceedingsl that I'VE have
not thought It necessary to attack the consti-
%ead De
The contention I supposed,,was. said the
to the law q construction in violation Of the
Constitution. believe 1t to DO well settled and
the that s gos oT4 s EssT the
ii%lio9 and it's own laws The jgry law Of
United States and always. The provisions Of
the law objected to in this case have been in
the statute book OF the State for thirteen years."
The Attorney General then called attention
to the fact that recent changes in the jury laws
Of the States all had for their purpose and OBJ
ject the procurement of o better and more in
telligent class of men as jurors.
AS to the alleged unreasonable search and
seizure" 1t Is said that after the prisoners
had been arrested their desks were broken
open BY the police and papers and bombs. &C..
were taken ont without warrant The At
tornoy- General said he would like to know how
Q criminals instruments Of crime could
legally be taken from him. He knew of no
process by which 1t could be done II
they wero his own. The question for
the Court, however, was not. How was
OF these things obtained?" but
rather What do they prove 2" In tho recent
was followed to South America, to Peru was
brought back without extrtdition proceedings,
and the court tried him and convicted him. 1t
get here ?" but Are you guityr' This was q
case involving e. higher question OF personal
right than that involved In the case now be-
Justice Miller-The Federal question was
whether the man, having been kidnapped by |
the Illinois authorities in Peru, without resort
TO extraditton papers, was protected by the |
Federal Constitution.
Attorney General Hunt-Yes. your Honor, |
but IL was on account of the illegal method by |
which he had been brought into tho court that |